Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Is there no poetry in your soul? God gave all of us both rational, linear mental abilities and non-rational imaginative mental abilities, and I firmly believe that we are meant to use both. To allow one to cancel out the other is to live an impoverished life.
So the Bible is imperfect? And since God inspired it, God is imperfect?
So you haven't heard about the worship of the goddess Gaia?
Environmentalisim is as much a religion as any. Just because it's the religion of many in the media, don't mistake it as "science".
And there are plenty of climatoligists that dispute global warming. And plenty of scientists who would relish the chance to study the evolutionary changes it would bring about if GW turns out to be true.
I'm simply pointing out that anyone who claims that dawkins is friendly to religion in general and only unfirendly to the doctrine of creationism, is lying.
Dawkins is a committed and doctrinaire atheist.
Briefly delurking to say, When was that then? Which scientists believed that the world was flat? What evidence led them to that conclusion? I ask because this particular claim is often made by those who wish to have the option to reject current scientific evidence, yet I have never seen the slightest evidence that any scientists ever believed that the world is flat.
"I tend to call ID the UNscience.
I prefer "NON-science", which if you say it quickily comes out "Nonsense".
Fine. I can agree with that. However, how do you define the beginning? If the "beginning" included all the processes science says led to the creation of the heavens and the earth, such as the big bang, the stellar development, and the planetary accretion that formed the earth, then I agree. Using modern science, it's even possible to make the case that six literal days is not inconsistent with these processes. It just requires the realization that time measurement is dependent on the reference frame. The reference frame of the universe immediately after the big bang would have been one in which a large gravitational field is present. Such large gravitational fields result in large time dilations, meaning that six days measured in that frame of reference could appear to be billions of years from our low-gravity reference frame. My question is this, if God is powerful enough to have created everything instantly just by speaking, why did it take Him six days? Why not just create everything instantly? The fact that God created everything over some time period, indicates that the processes described by modern science are not incompatible with the Scriptures.
The Song of Solomon is great poetry.
There are such people? Besides Biblical scholars, that is.
Are they working on the God-o-meter, so they can tell where He is or what He want's us to do. Just ask the God-o-meter a question and a little light tells us what God thinks.
Sorry, I just don't think science and technology mix well with faith. That's the whole fly in the ointment of "ID", which is seeking to make the study of Christianity a recognized science.
"The Bottom line is really quite simple....
(1)Do you believe in a creator God and the words & teachings He's given us in His book? (2)Or do you choose not to believe."
No exactly so simple. I do believe the God of Abraham gave us His Word in the Bible. That said, I do not necessarily believe the anti-evolutionists are reading the Genesis correctly.
And "correcting" a quote, essetially employing the same tactics that you denounce (rightly) strengthens your position and enhances the clarity of the debate? Now I am really curious about that thought process.
This is precisely why Dawkins' faith in evolution is not science.
You forgot to include the part of your post where you actually supported your ludicrous belief.
Evolution is science, and is based on "objective study of verifiable phenomena", no matter what the creationist propaganda may have said to the contrary.
Is there any evidence of evolution that would make it a "law"?
we are talking about fallible humans, both sides, I am not getting into the tit for tat.
all you have done is push back "miracles" in time. "laws" (lawgiver??), "life" (life giver). to the point where you can rationalize away a miracle subtitute it with "first cause" and suggest its not about it. however, if a first cause miracle can happen, whould there be any reason for there not to be more.
I for one applaud his article.
Its alright, now I'm not addicted I can keep myself to just one post. That was a demonstration..... Oh No, what am I doing? AAARRGGGHHHH!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.